Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive592

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Block needed for long-term sneaky vandalism IP[edit]

Resolved: (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) blocked for three months by Jayjg. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has for a while been the static IP of the "climate chart vandal" aka Mkd111 (talk · contribs), who has been on a year-long spree of slow sneaky vandalism. His edits are partly random changes falsifying statistics tables and climate charts, such as [1] (apparently random mechanical changes to figures; the correct ones as per the source are those he removed), and partly insertion of new climate charts that look superficially plausible but are pure invention – none of them are ever sourced, and often he inserts figures that directly contradict sources that are already in the articles.

Can somebody please slap a longish hardblock on that IP? I'm not taking action, because he has recently been concentrating on Macedonia articles, where I am restricted. Fut.Perf. 11:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. Jayjg (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting others' comments[edit]

Resolved: Settled elsewhere (and this wasn't really the right venue, anyway) —DoRD (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

At WT:RFA, Arcayne (talk · contribs) has twice deleted a comment left by Xeno (talk · contribs), an admin. Arcayne is an immensely experienced user and must surely know that such activity is disallowed. He was also warned in-between the two deletions. I consider this behaviour to be unacceptable, and would welcome input. ╟─TreasuryTagstannator─╢ 20:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an ANI on this is necessary - Arcayne and I are in dialog on the issue. –xenotalk 20:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
As I understood it, you were in dialogue over the "racism" debate. I am more concerned about the fact that Arcayne considers himself exempt from the talkpage guidelines, and I think that it merits wider input as a behavioural issue. ╟─TreasuryTagSpeaker─╢ 20:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
As to that issue, I've chosen a different word [2] which hopefully resolves the issue. –xenotalk 20:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, I'm not wildly concerned about his objection to your message's phrasing. It's the fact that he thought it was acceptable to remove it, twice, despite a warning and a long experience of Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTagduumvirate─╢ 20:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I was minded to give Arcayne a uw-delete2, but if the two of them are discussing the issue then maybe we should allow them to sort it out between them. Generally it is not a good idea to remove other editors comments. Mjroots (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think he appreciates your choice of words, judging by the threat at the end of his reply... ╟─TreasuryTagmost serene─╢ 20:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone comes off looking too good here. While I see now that it is pointed out, the origins of the phrase "going off the reservation", it is still common parlance and I would not have thought twice about using it. Arcayne would have been smarter just to ask xeno to strike the language. No administrative intervention required here. Who's buying lunch?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification, TT. Why you felt the matter could not have been handled off-noticeboard is beyond me, but there it is. I refactored out the comment that termed me as a racist because it was disruptive, attack-y and superfluous to the conversation. It was during a discussion at Talk:RfA wherein the term "gone off the reservation" was used to denote an admin who has begun acting outside of the rules. The rest of the conversation went on smoothly, as everyone understood the intent of the term. Xeno requested that I refrain from racist language a day (and more than at least a dozen other comments - none of which considered the phrase unbecoming). As the comment was essentially tossing gasoline on a fire, I refactored out the comment, as per WP:TPO and WP:REFACTOR, considering it desruptive. Call me crazy, but I consider being called a racist somewhat disruptive, uncivil and lacking in AGF. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Which bit of WP:TPO mandates removal of "disruptive" and "lacking in AGF" comments twice? ╟─TreasuryTagCounsellor of State─╢ 20:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Pointing out phrases that are considered by some to be racist or insensitive is not the same as "calling someone a racist" - so now it is you who is being asked to refactor. –xenotalk 20:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
What part of TPO? Take your pick: how about "Removing prohibited material" (libel), "Removing harmful posts" or "Refactoring for relevance"? Stating that someone is using racist language equates to calling them a racist. Before you argue that, consider carefully how you would react to someone dropping the n-word into a conversation. I'm ¼ Native American, and if I have no problem with the common usage of the term, then neither should you. Your moral outrage non-sequitur aside, it was disruptive and was equivalent to tossing gas on a smoldering discussion between participants. It was unwise and should have been handled privately, since the offense taken was of a personal nature. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd respond, but this isn't the right venue. Someone close this, it's stale. And so is lunch - I'm not paying =) –xenotalk 21:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
And Treasury Tag is buying lunch, but not for me; I just ate his. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Blocked article subjects[edit]

Looking at the thread on James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) above I am reminded of something I have been meaning to do for some time. {{Blocked subject}} is advice for blocked subjects. If your template-fu is strong I encourage you to tweak or amend as necessary, for example to include whether the user is blocked or not as a parameter and tailor the message accordingly. Also reduce the length as it is somewhat loquacious. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice template Guy. I've made a suggestion on its talk page. --NeilN talk to me 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestion, feel free to make any changes you like. It's very much a first draft. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Very nice. Grandmasterka 01:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


I remember a consensus (policy?) that we shouldn't collect what other editors have said on talk pages and save them on a private page somewhere. I forget what it was called, and haven't seen it for a long time, so I don't know if it's current consensus. Can s.o. point me in the right direction? kwami (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about copying and pasting it to your own userspace, or something different? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
You may be thinking of the fourth paragraph of Wikipedia:Attack page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think that was it. Thanks! kwami (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Help Please[edit]

Just by sheer luck I happen to spot an article created by a now blocked user with a bunch of racially charged BS concerning the earthquake in Hatti, on a hunch I check the contributions and found a massive attack campaign underway at the article Timeline of rescue efforts after the 2010 Haiti earthquake. I semi-protected the article and reverted the worst of the vandalism. I had a look through it, so far everything seems correct after the revert, but I would really like an extra pair of eyes to check to make sure all the vandalism is out of the article (I haven't been following the quake statistics all that much), and I could use a second opinion on the semi-protection length. I plugged in 6 hours, but in all honest if today's edits were any indication I think more time should be allotted. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked all the diffs from the last good edit before ClueBot's back to 17 Jan, and they all look clean to me. —DoRD (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and one of the vandal edits mentioned "9000" so I expect that this has something to do with /b/. —DoRD (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh Lord, we all know that means :/ Handling this assignment is going to be loads of phun... TomStar81 (Talk) 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought something was up. I mean, I'm aware that your average school IP is filled with thee cream of both stupidity and ignorance's crops, but it seemed as though the Haitian earthquake articles had been getting a bit too much attention from vandals... HalfShadow 19:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Why the hell are we even talking about this if /b/ is involved? Find the thread, report the fuck out of it, and semi the article for a bit. Don't talk about it, shut it down! —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 07:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

NY Times content[edit]

The New York Magazine is reporting that the New York Times is going to cease providing free content and will install a "metered" payment system. Please see Wikipedia:Using WebCite for information on how to archive NY Times articles in Wikipedia before they disappear behind a paywall.--Blargh29 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a bot waiting to be written. Toddst1 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The current NYT plan seems to be that only access to more than a few articles will require payment, just like Financial Times does. So, I don't see how this will cause any serious problems for us. You'd still be able to verify the occasional article reference. Besides, all NYT has to do to nix all your WebCite copies is to send an opt-out letter to WebCite. Pcap ping 05:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Already done → User:WebCiteBOT. I'd leave it's owner a message. He has already done Geocities, and Encarta Tim1357 (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with User[edit]

I am having difficulty trying to calm down User talk:Dropmeoff at the article Mestizo, its talk page, and my talk page. He has insulted me, and accused me of many things, while using terms such as "Pro-European racial ideology", "", etc. I believe we need someone to moderate, because he insists on inserting questionable and sensitive information in the articlres, which is very POV. Thank you for the help. C.Kent87 (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Building on this thread, I would ask C.Kent87 if User:Chris Iz Cali (consult sockpuppets of C.Kent87) is your new sock puppet because it seems very coincidental that both do very similar issues to increase the percentage of whites in Mexico [3], manipulation of sources [4][5] and violating 3rv [6]. Another coincidence is the name of your previous sock puppet User:Cali567 and I presume is his new sock puppet User:Chris Iz Cali, or not?. Ccrazymann (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ccrazyman, you can ask an Admin. to check the IP addresses, and you will see that our IPs are not the same. It is a known strategy to accuse others so that you may continue to vandalize, but really, enough. C.Kent87 (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Chummer, administrators do not have access to that kind of info; only checkusers do. Having said that, Ccrazyman, either file a SPI about this or shut up about it. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 07:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Just seems odd to me so much coincidence. Ccrazymann (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Then file a fragging SPI and stop using AN/I as a surrogate. Most admins here are not gonna be able to help you (especially if you keep spewing accusations); a CU will. Get thee to WP:SPI; stop blathering here. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 07:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Jéské, would you ever take a chill-pill or something. That's three times in the last few mins on ANI that you've just been downright rude, and esp. to relative newbs. Chill already - Alison 07:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ccrazymann deserves every bit of it. He's terribly annoying. C.Kent87 (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I am surprised that an experienced user and old as Jeremy, react so angrily to a novice user like me, I find it worrying. Ccrazymann (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
He was a little off putting, and is probably regretting it now, but he made a valid suggestion about the SPI thing and where to request a checkuser. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but his reaction only makes inexperienced users away from discussions like this, plus a lack of respect is telling me "stop blathering here". That can take as a personal attack and a clear lack the Civics. Ccrazymann (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but his suggestion is valid. If you've strong suspicions regarding an editor abusively socking, you can gather your evidence and post a case over on WP:SPI for other admins/checkusers to look over - Alison 07:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to get back to the original request (User:Ccrazymann, you may do whatever you'd like elsewhere). C.Kent87 (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

An old friend?[edit]

Something about Seregain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) puts me in mind of an old friend.

  • Started a correctly formed AfD with their first edits
  • Start a campaign against another editor with only 200 edits under their belt.
  • Only 200 edits but has started two AfDs and is clearly well versed in policy and wikipedia debating styles and terms from edit one.
  • [7] also does not look like the kind of thing a new user would write within their first 200 edits.

Does anyone kn ow what this user's original account was? I'm not going to believe this is a genuine newbie. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Note that, WP:SPI is likely to be the best place for this. NJA (t/c) 09:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hovhannesk and wilful misunderstanding of categories[edit]

I'd like to complain about User:Hovhannesk, who for months on end has been adding bogus categories to biographies of ethnic Armenians. For example, at Mariam Matossian, he added Category:Armenian musicians. I reverted him with the question "but is she a citizen?", yet he simply undid my revert. It's proper to put her in Category:Armenian Canadians, because she is of Armenian descent. It's not right to include her at Category:Armenian musicians, because chances are very high she's not a citizen of Armenia. She's Canadian by citizenship, so she belongs in Category:Canadian folk musicians.

Another example: this edit. First, it's illogical to have him at Category:Polish people of Armenian descent and Category:Polish Armenians -- one or the other (presumably the former). But it's downright absurd to put him under Category:Armenian film directors. He was not a citizen of Armenia, never made a film there, and for all we can tell, never set foot there.

I've tried to reason with him, but was met with defiance. This isn't a content dispute: we categorise people in professions by citizenship, period. And he does it all the time, so there's a bit of urgency involved too. Could someone else try to drum some sense into him? - Biruitorul Talk 18:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I have left User User:Hovhannesk a notification of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The possibility of dual citizenship should not be excluded. Many Canadians are also citizens of other countries, and Armenia may consider that a child of an Armenian parent born outside Armenia is also an Armenian. This is speculation on my part, but it is worth considering. On that basis, Jerzy Kawalerowicz may also have been an Armenian citizen. - Eastmain (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
What really matters is what relaible sources report as far as nationality goes. Something similar was going on at the Rachel Maddow bio where Canadian nationality was being added to the lead per a citation to Canada's nationality laws. --Tom (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Eastmain, it is possible some of these are dual citizens. However, he has stated he doesn't care about citizenship, but about "ethnic race". Moreover, have a look at this edit. There was no Armenian state at any time during this individual's lifetime, yet he went ahead and added Category:Armenian actors (as well as Category:Turkish Armenians when Category:Turkish people of Armenian descent was already there). I think that's a problem, and shows he isn't at all concerned with citizenship. - Biruitorul Talk 00:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. This editor seems to be a bit of an issue. Note the number of automated BLP notices on their talk page. Also see this old ANI thread. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Hovhannesk recently moved Armenian Iranians to Iranian Armenians just hours after the proposal was made at WP:RM by another user to make that move. It's not an uncontroversial move, as evidenced by the comment of another user on the page (which was there when Hovhannesk made the move). I moved the page back and asked him not to move pages in the middle of a formal move discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom is right: what matters is what reliable sources say, particularly when it comes to living people. Repeatedly adding dubious and unsourced categories to BLPs is a blocking offense. Jayjg (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

One factor that needs to be remembered here is that until a few years ago the Armenians were an ethnic group without a state: it would be hard for any Armenians to have dual citizenship. (A similar case is the Kurds.) Further, some members of an ethnic group live as expatriates due to a clear risk to their well being: life may be far better as a cab driver in Berlin than as a professor at their national university where they might be taken for "questioning" by the national security apparatus at any time, for example. That said, what I would look for is some assertion that the individual has a presence in Armenian culture -- that their music, art or writings are intended in some significant degree for an Armenian audience. While personally I would hold a person to a lower standard of verifiability than some here would, I still would look for something in the article to support the category beyond place of birth. -- llywrch (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Armenians born in the Armenian SSR certainly have evidence in their internal and external Soviet passports to determine if they are Armenian citizens. If reliable sources cannot be found that call a person a Soviet and/or an Armenian citizen, then it cannot be included in that person's article. Abductive (reasoning) 00:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
But what about Armenians born in Turkey or Syria, areas traditionally considered part of the Armenian homelands? (Which is why I mentioned the Kurds as a similar case.) The issue of ethnicity here is far more complex than simple labels on a passport -- no matter which country issues them. -- llywrch (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I would expect that with persons notable enough to feature in Wikipedia, we would have some evidence of them self-identifying as Armenian (the same principal as for Americans identifying as Jewish). This might exclude a few people who do not refer to their origins out of fear or other reasons, but is probably the best we can do.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

La Brea Tar Pits[edit]

Resolved: Per WP:DUCK, I've blocked both accounts indefinitely. It's a dead give away when a single use account signs their signature on both accounts manually, but wikilinks to article space instead of user space. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

An editor with the name of "Playdoh"-something has been waging a slow edit war for the last month, repeatedly attempting to insert a promotional piece. The editor won't follow consensus, and has been arguing his case on the talk page, and keeps adding it anyway. I don't know if I can take this to the edit-warring page since he doesn't seem to have violated 3RR (yet). But since he won't listen to anyone else, maybe a notice on his talk page, from an admin, might get his attention? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like no serious attempt has been made to have a discussion with this user. The only messages on his/her talk page are a boilerplate welcome message and a one-liner with little more than a link to WP:3RR (and no explanation). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Playdoh-something?! Please provide diffs, references to what and who you mean. And please notify that person of the multiple threads you have now opened about them. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Playdoh1845 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

As for spamming, here are some diffs. Also, given that the editor above has been participating in the discussion on the talk page, your note there has been no attempt to discuss this with the editor is false, given there is ample discussion there telling the user exactly that. Please read a little more into the situation before you go making broad statements that don't assume the good-faith of others. Bugs even said that he tried explaining this to the user.— dαlus Contribs 09:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion without first informing the editor of the discussion is couterproductive. I have now informed them of this section. Weakopedia (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, apart from the article talkpage, I'm not seeing any other threads where BB mentioned this. —DoRD (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, BB appeared twice in my watchlist and I misread the second edit summary - one thread it is. Weakopedia (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The user is a single-purpose account whose entire focus is that one article, to promote his website. I've already warned him at least twice at the one place he's working. I wanted an admin to speak to him on his talk page - where, if you'll notice, he's ignored all attempts by other to get him to follow consensus and stop his spamming. I was hoping an admin would post on his talk page so he might pay some attention, since he doesn't care what anyone else thinks. If he comes here to make his case, that's fine. Thank you (to the non-admin) for posting on his talk page. We'll see what he does next. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thing: If the user persists, can I take him to the edit-warring page even if he hasn't technically violated 3RR? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if the editor continues to add the material, even if they don't violate 3rr, take it to an/ew as it allows for slow edit wars as well. —DoRD (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
3RR is meaningless. If someone is edit warring, you can take them to the edit-warring page. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
3rr is only "the bright line," before which blockable edit warring can and often does happen. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry[edit]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Playdoh1845. Thank you for your time. Whoever has been involved here, I hereby request that you review the evidence and comment. Again, thank you for your time.— dαlus Contribs 05:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

His apparent sock is also accusing us of being workers for the La Brea Tar Pits museum. Until this situation came up, I was unaware that there was a conspiracy theory connected with this place. He's basically accusing us of trying to sweep his pet project under the tar pit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:David Steele Searacer[edit]

User:David Steele Searacer seems determined to create an article about himself. He has created David Steele (Searacer) and David Steele Searacer, both of which have been deleted, and has now created David Steele Searacer again. However, this is not the reason why I am posting here. He has repeatedly moved his user talk elsewhere: first he moved it to David Steele (Searacer), and I copied the material back to User talk:David Steele Searacer. Now he has moved User talk:David Steele Searacer to Talk:David Steele Searacer. I believe it is important for the history of the user talk page to remain intact, because it contains a record of warnings and other messages which may be relevant in future considerations of this editor's behaviour. I can, of course, simply copy the material back to his user talk page, as I did before. However, I see two reasons why this would not be a perfect solution: (1) it would not maintain the proper history, and (2) since he has now moved his user talk page twice it looks as though he may be prepared to continue to do so, and a futile edit war over this issue would not be desirable. I wonder whether it is possible for an administrator to restore the full edit history of the user talk page, and there may also be a point in someone other than me contacting the editor and explaining why moving his user talk page in this way is problematic. I have done my best, but to no avail. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I now see that User:Redvers has merged Talk:David Steele Searacer back to User talk:David Steele Searacer. Whether this was done in response to my post above or independently I cannot tell, but anyway it is done. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  • As a result of your post. I've also move-protected his userpage to stop him making an article of it again, in the hope of avoiding biting him. REDVERS 13:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary vandalism & Civility[edit]

I would like to mention couple of things in the ANI report :

  1. Uncivil remarks and personal attacks by User:Goethean"f***ing joke" "megalomaniac and a liar"
  2. Edit summary vandalism by IP which looks ugly in History and counter personal attacks!—[8]. ( Also would like to mention that another admin User:Abecedare was investigating stalking by AT&T ip address on User:Goethean )

--TheMandarin (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The user has a history of disruptive editing based off the talk page discussions regarding violations of WP:3RR, at a very minimum. I'd like to point out that [9] was a personal attack in response to a request to avoid personal attacks. I was considering dropping off a {{uw-npa4im}} on the talk page based on that, but based on the conversation that has already happened, it doesn't seem like it's useful. I would like to see some input from the user, or at least an acknowledgement that this is a problem in hopes that things can change. But the comment regarding religion is quite unacceptable. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:DTTR. If you think someone is using personal attacks, ask them nicely to tone it down. Templates tend to inflame, rather than cool off, heated situations. If your goal is to get them to stop, the best method is to start a non-templated discussion with them. --Jayron32 04:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Well my comment wasn't really regarding the template; the fact remains that there already was an attempt to tone down the personal attacks, and the response was to use a personal attack. At that point, there isn't much more that can be done. I remain hopeful that the user stops by here to give some insight, though. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The anonymous editor was definitely out of line, but I can see he was provoked. A bit of context to the above edit shows that Goethean wrote that "You've got a tremendous amount of gall complaining about systemic bias against your position. What a fucking joke." Neither side really looks too good. I think that both editors be given a warning that further inflammatory comments shouldn't be made. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The anon user is a well-known harasser of User:Goethean and should be reverted and blocked on sight, without wasting time engaging in his trolling.
  • As for Goethean's comments themselves: I have previously had occasion to urge him to be more civil in discussions, to avoid personal attacks, and to use dispute resolution processes. It would help if other admins and users could take a look at his conduct, and also the content disputes surrounding Ramakrishna, Jeffrey J. Kripal, and Kali's Child. The combination of genuine content issues and sub-standard editor conduct have made the editorial process reach an impasse (Note: I am not involved in these issues, though I have offered advice to parties on both sides of the dispute). Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Ramakrishnan goes to a dab page. Which page do you want us to look at? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, I've looked at the contributions. The only really controversial stuff I can see is on one of the articles, which is Talk:Jeffrey J. Kripal. The first problem is where he wrote that "Showing a lack of restraint that is completely typical" (unnecessary) and also where he wrote "What a fucking joke". I have to say that while this is definitely uncivil, it's not the worst I've seen. Definitely needs a warning though. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed this discussion after this user undid an edit of mine with the summary, 'undoing hatcheding of article'. I think he meant 'hatcheting.' I felt insulted, especially since I made my edit in good faith. Maybe he didn't understand the warning about using good manners? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I have created a Wikiquette alert. I hate trying to type this neologism, btw. From now on I'm calling it an etiquette alert. The spelling of Wikiquete Wikiqet Wikiquette makes my brain hurt. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I have seen the civility problems, rampant personal attacks from as early as 2008, explained briefly at the wikiquette. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Vandals[edit]

Resolved: Content dispute. No admin intervention required, but discussion is urged. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor User:Racepacket is in my view abusing the authority to edit articles. Specifically, Racepacket has targeted two articles, the List of Notable Morehouse College Alumni and the Black Ivy League, by deleting valid content.

Similar deletions and/or comments have not been made to similar articles such as the list of Earlham college alumni, Hampden Sydney, Elon University, etc. Why these two articles have received such harsh scrutiny is a question the editor must answer. Nonetheless, deleting a large percentage of an article which has been on the wiki for several months is odd if not deviant.

The edits made by Racepacket destroy or otherwise undermine the historical significance of Black Colleges and the tradition of the Black Ivy League.

Because similar deletions and or comments have not occurred on similar articles, one can only conclude that a certain level of bias exists.

The content/text deleted was factual and supported by citations and acted to further the overall purpose of these article(s). It is unfortunate however, that the editor found it necessary to intrude on two well written articles.

In the spirit of MLK Day, we must promote peace and harmony by discontinuing invasive attacks on substantive articles of historic significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John E. Rhea (talkcontribs) 14:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Three things right off the bat:
  1. If you're trying to paint somebody as a racist, stop right there. Such personal attacks will get you nowhere here fast.
  2. I don't see what much ANI is able to do for you here. This looks more like a content dispute more than anything. Rather than continue conversation with Racepacket, you instead come here and accuse him of vandalism – a lack of assuming good faith on your part as well.
  3. You are required to notify whom you are reporting here (like that I just had to do).
MuZemike 14:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  • The word "racists" never came out of my mouth! No I am not attempting to so label. Simply attempting to have this type of editing stopped. Do you wish to help?? John E. Rhea (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)JER —Preceding unsigned comment added by John E. Rhea (talkcontribs) 14:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I should note that when discussing issues related to "black folk" too often we conclude that a "contesting party" is raising allegations of racism. Such makes it easy to dismiss the underlying issue. In the instant situation, we have an editor who is applying scrutiny to an article unnecessarily.John E. Rhea (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)JER
  • I understand your good intentions, but it might be worthwhile discussing why they are making the changes on the talk page, and also perhaps send them a friendly message noting our policies. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oops, I see you did. This does look to be a content dispute. I'm marking as resolved. Please discuss with the editor but preferrably stay to the article talk pages. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Racepacket is discussing this on the talk page. Suggest you take an AGF pill and do likewise. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in "Don't bite the newby," and User:John E. Rhea is clearly a newby. He created his account on Nov. 27, 2009 and has 436 edits that were are mostly devoted to Morehouse College and the Black Ivy League articles. We have left welcome messages explaining the need to sign talk page comments and to document with references main article contributions. With respect to lists of college alumni, such alumni should be notable. If a Wikipedia article exists for the person, I assume that notability has been established. However, User John E. Rhea has been adding many people who are not covered by Wikipedia articles. In these cases, I evaluated whether the person could meet notability standards, and if not, I deleted the name. At Mr. Rhea's request, I have spent the last three hours working on Earlham College. The list of notable Earlham alumni and faculty were recently trimmed by User:Awiseman, but I did trim three non-notable faculty. (I then turned to building up the referenced content of the article.) The members of WP:UNI are willing to apply criteria fairly regardless of the race of the individuals involved. However, the insertion of non-notable people in alumni lists is an on-going problem and warning messages are included as comments in the source code of such lists asking editors to not do that.
I don't understand his concept of "intruding on an article." Perhaps User:John E. Rhea needs some mentoring. He has a lot of energy, but needs to learn more about WP:N, WP:NPOV as well as the mechanics of Wikipedia.
Regarding "deleting a large percentage of an article" (without discussion on the talk page), that is in fact what User:John E. Rhea has done today. Again, this is probably a beginner's mistake. Racepacket (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I have to say, that's very gracious and good natured of you Racepacket... - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It could be a case of mistakenly thinking that editors own articles. In any case, I apologize if I caused any difficulty here. When I saw this being brought up on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day I naturally drew the line that someone may have been alleging racism going on. I also assumed that the OP wanted some admin action taken, i.e. via a protection or a block (which clearly neither will happen per the recent commentary). But yeah. I would also recommend to keep discussing on the article's talk page, as that's that article talk pages are there for. –MuZemike 19:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John E. Rhea has confirmed that User:John E. Rhea and User:MuJami are the same person. Given the note on User talk:John E. Rhea about deleting an account, it's possible this is just a case of a newbie forgetting his password and making a new account - although it wouldn't have killed him to explain this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:RMHED[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
As there appears to be overwhelming support for this block, there is no reason to continue piling on. RMHED has the necessary avenues for appealing the block should he wish to do so. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RMHED (talk · contribs) was provisionally unbanned by BASC in late September. Since then, he has engaged in disruptive activity that has led to a series of subsequent blocks for incivility, personal attacks, inappropriate behavior, and trolling. More recently, he has blatantly violated WP:POINT by seeking some sort of revenge against another editor. As a result, I issued this user a final warning, and his response indicated that he doesn't understand why his actions are disruptive. As such, I have indefinitely blocked him. I am posting here to alert the community of my actions and to ensure that they are not considered excessive. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support: RMHED is a classic example of "the wasp at the picnic" who appears to consider erudition to be superior to negotiation or civility. Providing good content here is not unique to a handful of editors, nor confers immunity from sanbtions, as previous disruptive editors have found to their cost. Time after time, RMHED has been brought here, and elsewhere, has been multiply blocked and has perpetually failed to behave in a collegiate manner- and even if he's objectively correct, he's conspicuously failed to have that view accepted. Enough. Rodhullandemu 01:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, although I usually use "fly in the ointment". RMHED could be a good editor if he wasn't so RMHED about it :P. He's been blocked countless times, without understanding that we won't tolerate what he's doing (possibly because we keep tolerating it). He's exhausted all his chances, as far as I'm concerned. Ironholds (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Support - RMHED has also been mildly disruptive at other RfA/Bs. See here, here, here, here, here, here... And those are just recent ones. Though he does amuse me on occasion, I think that a block isn't a bad thing. -- Atama 01:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Otherwise, where's the end of the line for someone like this? Şłџğģő 01:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Support All of his disruptive activity makes me wonder why he was unbanned in the first place. The Thing Vandalize me 01:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. When I saw RMHED's comments earlier today in Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Useight 3, I thought there were so obviously over the line as to merit an immediate block right then and there; the revenge diff[10] only made it worse. In view of the long history of disruption and apparent unwillingness to reform, an indef block was very much in order. Nsk92 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Strongly endorse. This behavior had to come to an end at some point. RMHED has used up his "chances", and since being unbanned, has consistently embodied "disruptive" in every sense of the word. JamieS93 01:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Strongly endorse, beneficial, with no loss to the project. Should remain blocked. –blurpeace (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Support - While I am reluctant to comment given that I was the user who removed his remarks at useight's RfB with a less than cordial edit summary. Even still, I've seen nothing but absolute incivility and trolling from this user. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Support - I never quite understood why he remained unbanned all this time; RMHED acts like Wikipedia is his playground, we are his toys, and he has nothing to lose. Constantly skirting (and crossing) the edges of policies and guidelines for personal amusement is disruptive. Would have been an amazing gadfly against entrenched wiki-bureaucracy if he cared to be, but sadly he did not. -kotra (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Support block, oppose indef. Perhaps a little mentoring is needed? (If not then just ignore this)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I stand ready to be a mentor to RMHED if that is what's needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
In that case. I Support the proposed mentorship of RHHED. As long as he himslef agrees that is.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
and you seriously think ChildofMidnight would be an appropriate mentor? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodhullandemu (talkcontribs)
What evidence do we have that Baconfat will respond positively to mentoring? There are several diffs right up there indicating he is an irredeemable troll. Şłџğģő 02:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
1. Why not? CoM is a competent person. While he made some mistakes in the past, he's no idiot. He'll do fine. 2. If you never try then you'll never know. Give him a chance (yes I know he has had a second chance before)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
From the many mentorings I've seen on en.WP, the mentoree almost always winds up reblocked but the mentor learns a lot. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'll just say this: ChildofMidnight, as an editor, is not without conflict, and struggle as I might to WP:AGF, I would prefer to see some terms and conditions laid out for both parties to this arrangement. Rodhullandemu 02:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be cruel here, but "a second chance?" Do you know how to count? Şłџğģő 02:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
When RMHED was provisionally unbanned in September, he was given three mentors, all experienced WP users. Obviously that has not helped. Apart from the current incident, there were two other blocks for disruption between Sept 20 and now. I would say he has used up his second and third chances already. Nsk92 (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry people. Just trying to save him from a terrible fate....--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I did duck out of mentorship when we were fellow candidates for ArbCom, for obvious reasons.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The terms of his unban found here may be interesting, and it should be noted that he has been blocked for disruptive comments on RfX in the past. Nathan T 02:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Support with regrets for the block. Mentorship isn't a panacea. RMHED can contribute productively when he chooses to, but blanking a civil oppose at an RFA is a direct challenge to how our website operates. This is someone who only recently received a provisional unban. Durova403 02:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
He can't choose to if he can't edit now can he? So how can he be unblocked? No since loseing another editor (even if he is disruptive). Can't people change?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
That depends on how many chances you're prepared to give; tell me, how many has RMHED had already? Rodhullandemu 02:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Alot less than Vintagekit's. I just thought that something good could come out of this, that's all.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
To reiterate, and to answer your question at the end there: Fuck no. Şłџğģő 02:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
There's an RFA candidate with more blocks than him.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
So? Şłџğģő 02:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
your right, just forget everything I said.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
"Mine's bigger than yours" is never a valid argument. The person currently at RfA has not exhausted the community's trust in the way RMHED has; tell me, how many of that user's blocks are indefs? Ironholds (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Support He does deserve to get banned, but until the thirst for disruption goes away, he'll just keep on making socks and being a nuisance. Better to just revert everything he does and not feed any drama to his trolling. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I assume that this is an "indefinite until the problem is unlikley to reassert itself" rather than "indef seeking for a ban"?--Tznkai (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment, but butting heads with the user will only make him angrier. Better just to not give him the attention he wants. Banning or not banning is irrelevant until that is solved.Doc Quintana (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - To be honest, I am not sure why the BASC unblocked him in the first place. Tiptoety talk 03:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Enough was enough. I wouldn't be opposed to the WP:Standard offer, but the disruptions RHMED has caused both recently and long-term, mean I beleive he needs to stay blocked for at least a while. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Editor is of no value to the project, and far too much time has been exerted discussing his problems. Cut the cord. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I supported this users second chance and it did not take long to regret it. I was not surprised to see this thread. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 04:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I had a feeling this was coming for quite a while - in fact, I'm surprised this discussion hasn't happened sooner. I'm not sure why ArbCom reversed the community-imposed ban like that - their authority should not override that of the community's in this regard, and a formal appeal should have been applied instead (or was it - either way, his unblock was widely opposed at the time). But that's ultimately beside the point - since his return to active editing, RMHED has done next-to-nothing even remotely helpful to the site (I've checked before), and has instead conducted himself in a manner reminiscent of a jester, making satirical remarks on numerous talk spaces that are often laden with pointy undertones, and are so incoherent that they cannot be taken seriously as anything other than blatant trolling. The only slight redeeming factor in this case is, I actually like his sense of humour. But the fact remains, he has proven that he is not a fit for this site. Wikipedia needs editors, it needs vandal fighters, it needs administrators - but it does not need satirizing jesters. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • RMHED has been playing games and hovering on the brink of a block or topic ban for some time. The block is appropriate and should remian in place until there is some acknowledgement of, and commitment to reforming, the issues identified above. He's quite capable of doing that any time and I would obviously support a conditional unblock when suitable assurances are in place. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. RHMED's latest antics aren't so bad in themselves, but these are just the latest shenanigans in a long history of what is pretty blatant trolling. If RHMED had any point to make I might be a little more forgiving, but causing disruption seems to be the only aim. Not useful to the project, so get rid of him. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC).
  • Oppose without date certain RMHED is, at best, "colorful", and certainly can act a bit odd (yes, I saw his work at Daily Mail), but I continue to oppose indefinite blocks as being quite inutile at best, and Drsaconian at worst. Collect (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Abstain As the candidate in one of the recent WP:RFAs that he has targetted (as Mr. Baconfat), I would not want to sound like "sour grapes" towards my first oppose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Support perfect example of the dangers of giving too many "last chances". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support As others have mentioned, the latest nonsense isn't so bad in itself, but taken with the rest of RMHED's history, this is a necessary end. Look at all the time and energy spent trying to convince him to behave in a civil manner, all for naught. Sorry, but the net value of his presence here is in the red. —DoRD (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Thehairybananasling on Obama bio[edit]

This user (a troll?) posted this. [11]. Can something be done to prevent this person from doing it again? Thanks. Malke2010 16:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For reference the correct name is Thehairybananasling (talk · contribs). I had already reverted and given this user a level 2 vandalism warning with an additional note about altering peoples talk page posts. As it's the only contribution i'm not sure that additional steps need to be taken unless more contributions follow.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, Thanks, Malke2010 16:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't the Obama article along with its talk page under protection from vandals?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems like protection is off. Can someone put it back if so?Malke2010 16:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is semi-protected, the talk page is not. This edit was to the talk page. Protecting the talk page completely cuts off even good faith input by non-confirmed editors and shouldn't be done lightly.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Barack Obama is semi-protected, which prevents edits by new and unregistered users. The talk page is not protected, nor should it be unless it is vandalized extremely often.  Sandstein  16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict):::::See that, very good, Danke.Malke2010 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Hairy banana sling is probably a username violation, this is almost certainly not an account on which to expend too much effort before blocking. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Did not know about user name vios. Good point. I do feel that anyone coming on saying such things is demonstrating that he/she does not wish to be part of the wikipedia community and should be shown the door, but this is a process.Malke2010 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Probably at least borderline. Just to be clear I have no expectations of watching FA's flow out of this account. I'm also not sure it's any different then the dozens of other one time vandal accounts that pop up weekly.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, if s/he comes back, then could it be blocked? Because, presumably the block is for that computer/IP where the edits are coming from?Malke2010 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: matter is in hand Rodhullandemu 17:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. There is an ongoing dispute over at Mikal, which appears to be the name of two separate musicians--one from the U.S., and the other from the UK. Editors are fully replacing content in favour of one musician or the other. The most recent articles for both are: UK and US. Both of these articles have notability issues. In order to address both of them, some disambig is in order, but I think it goes beyond my capabilities as an editor. My best guess for a solution is to create a redirect from Mikal to Mikal (disambiguation), and create Mikal (American musician) and Mikal (UK musician) with appropriate content and edit histories. Thanks, Steamroller Assault (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Doing... This will need some work to split into separate articles, but the disambig need not be that complicated. Since the UK article was created first, I think that should be under the main title. Notability and sourcing can be addressed when the waters have cleared somewhat. Rodhullandemu 17:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done I hadn't realised there was another Mikal - Michael Gurry, so have created the DAB page accordingly. I'll take a look at the content. No further admin action required here. Rodhullandemu 17:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Stealing a userpage, abusive comments[edit]

Resolved: Page blanked as lacking attribution, later recreated as an attack page and subsequently deleted. –xenotalk 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No administrative action required. All Wikipedia pages are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License; scroll to the bottom of any Wikipedia page and read the fine print. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

After I noticed User:TheRightfullEqual stole another editor's userpage wholesale without attribution (see his versus User:NDfan007), I deleted it with the edit summary "Remove copyvio; license for that text requires attribution. Copied from User:NDfan007." This disease of copying userpages wholesale without attribution seems to be going around in the last day or so. The response I got was this abusive comment on my talkpage and TheRightfullEqual's userpage now changed to be a personal attack on me.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC) EDITED TO ADD: also this attack from new sockpuppet User:The Man That Rocks And Is Cool.

I'm not convinced that it is a copyright violation to use someone else's userpage (and I speak as someone who copied elements of mine...) – everything on Wikipedia is submitted under a free copyright license, after all. What's the problem? ╟─TreasuryTagsenator─╢ 10:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I contributed to that thread, and have obviously read it. I am still not convinced that it is a copyright violation to use someone else's userpage (and I speak as someone who copied elements of mine...) – everything on Wikipedia is submitted under a free copyright license, after all. What's the problem? ╟─TreasuryTagWoolsack─╢ 10:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, I'm no expert, just going by what was said above, but the problem would be that the CC-BY-SA isn't a free license in the sense that it's like public domain material or something; attribution is still required for a subsequent use to be permitted.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The terms of CC-BY-SA are clear - re-use of content requires attribution, even within Wikipedia. However, although that is a perfectly correct reason to prevent unattributed userpage copying, the fact that it is deceitful and rude is more important but also more open to wikilawyering. CIreland (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • User:The_Man_That_Rocks_And_Is_Cool's only contributions so far have been to vandalise a talk page, and refactor my comments when I notified them. Very very mild personal attacks, but still, I don't really think they are here to build an encyclopedia. --Taelus (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • See also The Man That Rocks' new userpage.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • User blocked as a harrassment account. --Taelus (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
SO similiar looking User Pages is a crime? O_O. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 12:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Idential userpages are violating US copyright law without attribution, yes. Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
How about similiar looking? My User page layout is similiar to Deltype's. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Similar looking doesn't really matter; but if you've copied parts of it, you need attribution. The same copyright license applies in our article space and user space. We don't alow cut-and-paste moves in article space for this reason, and we can't allow them (by law) in user space either. CC-BY-SA requires attribution. I don't know if we have any views or polcies on it apart from the legal stuff, I haven't checked. Ale_Jrbtalk 13:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

While what the user did would be considered rather rude and obnoxious, is there really a wikipedian policy that prohibits it? I thought this was supposed to be a free-content projet. Prop3v56 (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is, both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA require attribution for copying content. What we produce here is free as in beer and as in freedom, under the condition that credit is given where credit is due. MLauba (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it goes beyond Wikipedia policy and goes into international copyright law. Everything anyone posts here is copyright to them, they own it, and the condition they give to otherwise free use is that it be given attribution and that derivative works follow the same license. Using Wikipedia content, even inside Wikipedia, without attribution is copyright infringement. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 22:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I see this is closed, so I will not re-open it, but I think Fastily's close comment is in direct contravention of Woogee (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea that this should be pursued as a copyright violation is fanciful, but excessive unauthorized "borrowing" of other people's userpages (to the point of copying their barnstars, etc.) is uncivil, and if necessary I will blank or delete such pages if they are not revised after a warning and a reasonable time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's comments notwithstanding; This is correct. The page would have been properly attributed if the edit summary of the initial edit had said "copied from (source)". However, lacking this, it was a violation of the cc-by-sa license. –xenotalk 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors.. The edit summary would need to provide a hyperlink or URL from the original source, not just the name of the person whose page was copied. Woogee (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. That's what you would paste where I put (source). "Copied from User:Xeno" would be sufficient as Mediawiki would generate a hyperlink (the dickishness of copying wholesale a userpage without permission notwithstanding). –xenotalk 00:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
For anyone who doesn't know, WP:Copying within Wikipedia is the relevant guideline. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
NYBrad, I don't the pursuing this as a copyright issue is fanciful at all, that is exactly what it is. Not Wikipedia's copyright either, but the user who created the content. You can call it "borrowing" if you want, but the fact is that the content of Wikipedia is using has been given to use with some very clear conditions and attribution is one of them. That being said, I don't think anyone is going to involve the law, but it is entirely reasonable for a user to demand attribution for their content. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Butler's maintenance of an attack page against me[edit]


Tom Butler has blanked his user page of his own accord.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Tom Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Relevant discussions:

I am concerned that this particular user is maintaining an on-wiki WP:ATTACK page in violation of the userpage policy. Since there is a history of bad-blood between myself and this user, I have expressed my concerns to others and asked for their advice. The user is reticent and refuses to adjust his user page. I ask now for uninvolved administrator intervention.


ScienceApologist (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I didn't see you referred to specifically on his page... I don't find pages complaining on how the skeptics are all blind particularly tasteful but... could you please specify the section of the talk page where he refers specifically to you. Simonm223 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, most of the quotes that Tom Butler finds so abhorrent are from me, not ScienceApologist. The lead quote at "Expectation of safety" is from SA. I've been aware of the page for some time, and have even pointed to it in my RFAs. Mr. Butler has the same right to consider my views harmful to Wikipedia as I do to find his views harmful. So long as he doesn't stoop to name-calling and other inflammatory techniques, I don't consider it to be an attack page.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I may have been looking at an older version. Sorry about the refresh. Still, the entire userpage is somewhat distasteful and he does take a quote from me out-of-context (even though he removed my timestamp and username attribution). Anyway, I can't help but feel that the maintenance of this page is a battlefield tactic. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
On closer inspection you are referenced once by initials SA with an implication that your (low) opinion of conspiracy theory proponents makes Wikipedia unsafe. I bet you like that about as much as I like being called a pawn of the Communist Party of China! That would suggest that this particular anti-skeptical screed is a bit more targeted than some I've seen on Wikipedia. I'd present this as a much less problematic example of an ant-skeptical complaint on a talk page for the sake of comparison. It would appear that SA's complaint may have some merit. Simonm223 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • So Tom Butler is basically setting himself up to look bad if he gets involved in any kind of dispute that gets escalated. At this point I would be sitting back in my large black leather chair and stroking my long-haired white cat... Guy (Help!) 23:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • /me sits back on her broomstick stroking her familiar. Durova403 00:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC) I'll get you, my pretty! -The Wiki Witch of the West
There should be no objection to a person speaking the truth on their own page, but this drama is too time consuming. SA, if any editor is going to say things they don't want others to know about, then perhaps it would be best not to speak. Take responsibility for your actions! Tom Butler (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:DegenFarang ignoring tendentious editing warnings[edit]

A prior ANI complaint illustrated this editors histor of tendatious editing, including vandalizing BLP articles and Wikihounding. He was then giving a final warning, and then another warning and then a "last warning". To this he responded he would only obey Wikipedia rule which is he would be ignoring all rules. He editionally mocked all policy and guidelines and made up his own. He recieved "final warnings" for his previous BLP vandalizing here and here. He has recieved about five "final warnings" in total, yet he is allowed to continue his slash and burn editing. Today he as violated 3RR and has made a [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Badger second OUTING] abusive attack at me, as well as inappropriately editting that article. Enough is enough. User:DegenFarang and his IP should be blocked permanently, immediately. It is a complete mockery that he has ignored numerous final warnings and continues to act far beyond anything acceptable to the Wikipedia comunity. 2005 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Canvass much ? Arkon (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I will not dignify this with a response, other than to say I reported 2005 for edit warring prior to this posting - and to say that this all stems from my editing a likely autobiographical article full of un sourced info, self-published external link spam and peacock terms DegenFarang (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
As noted below, it is not canvassing to notify adminstrators who have given him a final warning that their final warnings have been ignored. The entire problem here is individual admins only being aware of isolated incidents, rather than a pattern of behavior. Obviously if one admin gives a final warning over an attempted outing, that this administrator should be made aware of a second attempted outing, as noted by Cailil below. 2005 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
You should read WP:CANVAS. What I found objectionable was not so much the notifications, but the tone, which is unarguably biased. Arkon (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Degen did get warned for tendentious commentary and for wikilawyering about WP:IAR (see my talk page). I warned him. User:2005 has a history of canvassing and was also warned about that. While the post to my page & Ed's could be considered appropriate as we both warned Degen [12] - there is maybe a wider WP:CANVAS issue here.
    I suggest a caution be issued to both Users to disengage from anything to do with the other. Both editors are edit warring and both should be blocked even though they technically have not broken 3RR - they have broken it's spirit and are both engaged in tit-for-tat pointy WP:AN3 posts. Additional Degen was reported for a separate 3RR issue by another user today
    Suggesting 36hour blocks for both if this behaviour continues--Cailil talk 01:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
That advice echoes my own advice given privately to an editor asking what should be done about these two editors. Just stay away from each other. I don't see either one being particularly disruptive except when in conflict with each other, so like vinegar and baking soda they should stay apart. The problem is that both have an interest in the same subject (poker) so it can be difficult, but it should be possible as long as they don't do the following:
  1. Contact one another.
  2. Talk about the other person either on talk pages (article or user) or noticeboards.
  3. Revert each other or remove each other's content.
Just pretend that the other person doesn't exist. Forget about reporting the other person for spamming, or civility breaches, or BLP violations, etc. If the other person is misbehaving, let someone else take care of it. -- Atama 20:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
While in general I agree, Degen has exhibitted tendentious and pointy behaviour and is continuing to be uncivil and generally combative in his communications with sysops who are attempting to help him. He's also attempting to rules-lawyer using WP:IAR--Cailil talk 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Also the diff from the AFD User:2005 tried to link to [13] may indeed show an attempted outting--Cailil talk 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I was reported for a 3rr by an editor who was paid to write the article (and on an article that is likely going to be deleted). 2005 is similarly self-interested in the article in question here. The "rules" say do not revert three times - but IAR and common sense tell me if I make edits that improve Wikipedia, and editors with a WP:COI fight me, I should not appease them by letting them have their way. DegenFarang (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
      • And regarding outing I think it is relevant. is a self-published blog that has been deemed an unreliable source, yet has hundreds of links and references on Wikipedia. The majority of these came from User:2005 - who defends their inclusion vigorously. I have sent at least 10 emails to referencing User:2005 and Wikipedia and have not gotten a single reply. If that was not User:2005, don't you think they would have said that? Or at least asked me what I was talking about? is owned by Shirley Rosario and the domain is in the name of Steve Badger - you do the math. If I just broke some rule, I'm sorry, but I'm acting in good faith and trying to keep Wikipedia neutral (which the article in question is clearly not) and free of spam. DegenFarang (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • DegenFarang has blatantly violated 3RR, with his fourth revert -- of three different editors. I have no interest in engaging with this editor. He has engaged in hounding, and attempted outing, both before and again today. I have notified administrators who have previously given DegenFarang "final warnings", and have followed Wikipedia guidelines in reporting things where they should be reported. DegenFarang engages in point-y behavior with everyone he encounters, which leads to reports about his behavior being spread all over the place instead of concentrated in one place, leading to multiple toothless "final warnings". It's not canvasing to alert the editors who have given him final warnings that all their final warnings are being ignored! The vast majority of his edits are tendatious and/or mischaracterized. He should be banned permanently. He has never learned from the multiple times he has been blocked before. Because Administrators have only briefly blocked him, he continues to violate policies, ignoring all other editors, etc. He has violated the letter of the 3RR policy. He has been reverted by two other editors besides me, so it is not a case of me edit warring him.(edit conflict) 2005 (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I have been reverted by them but am not edit warring with them. They are reverting individual edits I have made whereas you are making blanket rollbacks of ALL of my edits. If you don't want to 'engage' with me then stop following me around Wikipedia undoing all of the good faith edits that I make, as you have been doing since day 1 of me being an editor. You seem to think you own all of the poker biographies on Wikipedia - newsflash 2005: you don't. DegenFarang (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned user returns?[edit]

Resolved: Sockpuppet indefinitely blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A newly created account, HomolkaTheAllKnowing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), is posting personal attacks against other editors on Talk:Neil Gaiman.[14][15] The language and conduct of this editor is identical to that of an indefinitely blocked account, EchoofReason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), which turned out to be a sock of a banned editor ColScott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive526#Block review, sockpuppet? for previous discussions on this user. I recommend blocking HomolkaTheAllKnowing and doing a checkuser run on the account, as per the previous discussion, since this user has had a habit of abusing multiple accounts. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, that's a pretty blatant sock-puppeting. You would think after several bans he would've figured out that his 'DO NO HARM' verbal tic would be something to suppress. --Gwern (contribs) 18:18 19 January 2010 (GMT)
You had it posted here before I saw any of the discussion, but I agree it seems pretty obvious. Has a new SPI case been opened, or is it just here? Having run afoul of him before, I hesitate to step in here. LadyofShalott 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
It's so obvious I didn't think it was worth filing an SPI case. This should be a block on sight case. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
And the sockpuppet has now confirmed that it's ColScott again. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Unjustified deletion at article talk[edit]

Resolved: Does not require administrator intervention

an experienced editor, User: William M. Connolley is continually removing article talk page comments which relate to his conduct at that page. his removals of other editors' comments do not seem warranted. have no justification whatsoever. he has been warned repeatedly regarding his adherence to WP:CIVIL. please see this talk page diff. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

additional note: the deletion may have had good-faith reasons, as he was deleting his own comment as well. however i have restored another editor's comment there, so perhaps some outside review might be useful just to provide some objective advice. he has also repeatedly removed my comments from his own talk page. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI, per WP:UP#CMT it is perfectly acceptable for users to remove comments from their own talk page. Also, William M. Connolley has now been notified of this thread. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This was article talk where William had been requested to remove his own response to an unhelpful comment – Sm8900 undid the removal without giving any reason in the edit summary,[16] so I undid that edit with the comment "unexplained restoration of contentious and apparently offtopic discussion". The statement "i have restored another editor's comment there" is misleading, as the restoration included William's comments which he had been requested to delete, with a strike through and additional comment. Per WP:TPO it can be in order to remove disruptive comments, though usually it's better to archive them. As the request to delete was to remove a contentious statement, I've compromised by redacting William M. Connolley's own remark, and suggest that the others consider removing their remarks. Telling someone to shut up after they write "please tell me to "shut up"." is rising to the bait and inappropriate, getting those who made them to remove the provocative remarks now that the response has been removed seems worthwhile. . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate dave souza's response. I would just like to mention that his summation of the situation, though it may seem a bit convoluted at first glance, is actually a very comprehensive and accurate review of the facts. thanks for your willingness to address this matter, and to diligently review all of the facts relating to it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The New Yorker takes a swipe at Wikipedia[edit]

Resolved: Issue appears to be well in hand now. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A few days ago, someone from The New Yorker left a message on my talk page asking me for an interview regarding BLPs (specifically concerning Neil Gaiman, on which I had been involved about a year ago). I see that The New Yorker has now published a cover story on Gaiman - a major biographical profile - which includes the comment: "The pivotal fact of Gaiman’s childhood is one that appears nowhere in his fiction and is periodically removed from his Wikipedia page by the site’s editors." [17] Looking at the page history, it seems that The New Yorker's comment is well-founded - two editors appear to be trying to WP:OWN the article are going against the consensus on the talk page by reverting out even new material cited to The New Yorker. The reasons for doing so appear to be very dubious - for instance, arguing that The New Yorker is a tabloid (!) This really doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia and being highlighted in a cover story is an embarrassment to the project. The issue has been raised on WP:BLPN#Neil Gaiman, which is how I found out about it. However I think, given the adverse press commentary, that the article would benefit from the involvement of the experienced editors here. (For the record, I'm not involved in the current discussion on Talk:Neil Gaiman#Scientology.) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As one of the editors mentioned I don't see how one reverting a change I thought breached BLP, giving reasons in the edit summary, followed by lengthier reasons given immediately in talk, or any of my other contributions in that thread, means I have ownership issues. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll refactor that; although it does give the impression of ownership, I accept that you were acting in good faith. But I suggest that you should work with the other editors on the talk page to find a way to include the information rather than just reverting it out of the article on what seem to me to be very dubious grounds. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is the single sentence in the New Yorker article which references Wikipedia: "The pivotal fact of Gaiman’s childhood is one that appears nowhere in his fiction and is periodically removed from his Wikipedia page by the site’s editors". I don't see that as a "swipe" taken at anyone. Although it does not make Wikipedia look good, it appears to be accurate.